Re: Ethernet over WANs
Roy,
You make an excellent point when you say that many people reading this
reflector may be unfamiliar with SONET OAM features as they are implemented
by the telecom industry. Since this reflector group will be voting on the
components of the recommendation to IEEE 802.3 (and ultimately the LMSC
Executive and the IEEE Standards Board) I think it is encumbent on you to
educate the audience on the subject. Traditionally this is achieved by
presentations and tutorials. May I suggest you organize a tutorial for the
next Plenary meeting?
Brian MacLeod
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Bill.St.Arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx <Bill.St.Arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rohit Mittal <mittal.rohit@xxxxxxxxxxx>; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
<stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, August 07, 1999 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: Ethernet over WANs
>
>Bill,
>
>As part of the common carrier industry that uses SONET/SDH all of the time,
and
>as a person that was involved with codifying the communications stack for
Q3, I
>wonder where you get the idea that OAM has not been standardized within the
>SONET/SDH protocol? Have your ever heard of the H bytes, the B bytes, the
K
>bytes, the Z bytes, etc. All of these are part of the OAM of the SONET/SDH
>protocol.
>
>For 10GbE, not all of the OAM bytes will be used within the interface
>processing, thus reducing the cost of processing compared to current
SONET/SDH
>systems. As far as proprietary implementations of external management
systems,
>have you ever heard of extended MIBs. There is little difference in the
>additional features offered by data switch vendors and the additional
features
>offered by transmission vendors.
>
>Either you have been badly misinformed by some vendor somewhere, or do not
>understand the overall issues of network management within the carrier
>industry. There are carrier (SONET) network management software solutions
that
>will span multiple vendors. A major one of those vendors is in Calgary,
>Canada. It can be compared to the carrier version of the SNMP network
managers
>that are well known by the data networking industry.
>
>The specific of the minimum OAM features that are implemented has not
entered
>the discuss yet. I personally do not think that it is time yet. Some of
the
>OAM features that are in SONET/SDH do not exist in common data networking
>protocols, so many of the people that reading from this reflector are
unfamiliar
>with them. To enter into that discussion now would very much confuse the
>issues.
>
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>MCI WorldCom
>
>"Bill St. Arnaud" wrote:
>
>> Rohit:
>>
>> I think you will see 3 different approaches in the marketplace for
>> delivering 10GbE over the WAN:
>>
>> 1. 10GbE over SONET where a proprietary OAM is done at SONET layer
>> 2. 10Gbe over wavelengths where a proprietary OAM is done out of band in
the
>> optical channel
>> 3. Native 10Gbe which would require some sort of new OAM protocol
>>
>> The question that has been asked as since no common standard has been
>> developed for OAM in SONET, is a "standard" OAM required for native
10GbE?
>>
>> Bill
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I recently subscribed to this list and was going through the archives
>> >
>> > Some people have mentioned about sending ethernet over MAN/WAN links.
>> > The question I have is Ethernet doesn't have OAM features of SONET.
>> > That is a critical feature for WANs (and not LANs)
>> > How is that handled for 10GbE? Can you make intellegent enough DWDM
>> > elements to handle that. Doesn't that by itself add overhead which is
>> > comparable to SONET overhead. If so, then why is there so much
>> > discussion
>> > as to replace SONET by 10GbE.
>>
>> >
>> > In packet over SONET, we use PPP which adds very little
>> > overhead. Can't we use the same format for 10GbE over SONET. In that
>> > case we can define the 10GbE standard without worrying about SONET .
>> > Just my 2c.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Rohit Mittal
>> > ~
>> >
>